ArticleInternational journal of medical sciences2026
C1q CIC in Lupus Nephritis: An Analysis of 883 Patients.
Article in International journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Lupus nephritis (LN) is a major complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This study evaluated the association of C1q-circulating immune complexes (C1q CIC) with LN and their potential adjunctive rule-out value compared with conventional biomarkers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 883 SLE patients from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) cohort in Taiwan. C1q CIC was assessed for its association with disease activity and compared to anti-dsDNA, C3, and C4. Logistic regression and ROC analysis were performed. Results: C1q CIC levels were significantly elevated in active SLE and in non-renal manifestations, including cutaneous involvement, serositis, and hematologic abnormalities. In patients with LN, C1q CIC levels were significantly higher than in those without LN, whereas anti-dsDNA, C3, and C4 showed no significant differences. Overall discriminative performance was modest, and C1q CIC is not suitable as a diagnostic or screening tool for LN. At a cutoff of 5.31 μg Eq/mL, C1q CIC showed a high negative predictive value (NPV = 86.04%) but low positive predictive value (PPV = 29.51%). In stratified analysis, discriminative ability was limited in patients with low disease activity (SLEDAI-2K < 4; AUC = 0.55), whereas NPV remained high (97.15%). Conclusion: C1q CIC may serve as an adjunctive rule-out biomarker for LN, particularly when levels are low or in patients with low disease activity. Although not suitable for diagnosis or screening, its relatively high NPV may help identify patients at lower risk of LN. Results should be interpreted in conjunction with clinical and laboratory assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.